Donald Trump indicted by Manhattan grand jury

[BPPLEE]

I think he would makes thing much worse for himself by denying some established facts, However I was aksing

BPPLEE​

Well he didn’t testify which was wise

 

[BPPLEE]

OTH, Costello's antics will play well in the MAGA media. We'll see if Trump can constrain himself for an entire week without attacking the jury.

Alan Dershowitz rips 'tyrant' judge for 'outrageous' rulings in Trump trial: 'Never seen spectacle like this'

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz argued the NY v. Trump trial should be televised in order to expose Judge Juan Merchan's "outrageous" rulings.

www.foxnews.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

Did prosecutors make a strong case in Trump's hush-money trial?​

Legal experts say the prosecution did an efficient job. But even with solid evidence and testimony, they acknowledge that a conviction in the complex felony case is far from guaranteed.

"The pieces are all there. But is it there beyond a reasonable doubt?" said former Brooklyn prosecutor Julie Rendelman. "I don't know."

To prove their case, prosecutors must show intent - that Mr Trump illegally classified records for the purpose of aiding his campaign.

But prosecutors must make this connection [to the campaign] clear to the jury.

[former Manhattan prosecutor Lance] Fletcher said prosecutors succeeded in doing so, with witnesses arguing the hush-money payment and reimbursement was not made to protect Mr Trump's family.

"This was all about the election," Mr Fletcher said. "If I was going to bet, I would bet on a conviction. But I don't think it's a slam dunk."

--

Just to answer @Postvieww 's question about legal experts who disagree with Dershowitz in the thread allegedly about Clarence Thomas.

 

[perplexed]

Have there been any articles that attack Merchan and don't make ridiculous omissions ?

 

[Postvieww]

Did prosecutors make a strong case in Trump's hush-money trial?​

Legal experts say the prosecution did an efficient job. But even with solid evidence and testimony, they acknowledge that a conviction in the complex felony case is far from guaranteed.

"The pieces are all there. But is it there beyond a reasonable doubt?" said former Brooklyn prosecutor Julie Rendelman. "I don't know."

To prove their case, prosecutors must show intent - that Mr Trump illegally classified records for the purpose of aiding his campaign.

But prosecutors must make this connection [to the campaign] clear to the jury.

[former Manhattan prosecutor Lance] Fletcher said prosecutors succeeded in doing so, with witnesses arguing the hush-money payment and reimbursement was not made to protect Mr Trump's family.

"This was all about the election," Mr Fletcher said. "If I was going to bet, I would bet on a conviction. But I don't think it's a slam dunk."

--

Just to answer @Postvieww 's question about legal experts who disagree with Dershowitz in the thread allegedly about Clarence Thomas.

The article is hardly a glowing praise of the firm legal standing of the case. Also a prosecutor from Brooklyn and one from Manhattan can hardly be compared to the expertise of an Alan Dershowitz and a Jonathan Turley.This case is an embarrassment to the legal profession.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The article is hardly a glowing praise of the firm legal standing of the case. Also a prosecutor from Brooklyn and one from Manhattan can hardly be compared to the expertise of an Alan Dershowitz and a Jonathan Turley.This case is an embarrassment to the legal profession.

Glowing praise? I don't know. It seems to accept the legal standing tacitly, which is even worse for your position.

Dersh and Turley are prominent, but not necessarily authoritative. In any case, you asked for one, I gave you two.

 

[perplexed]

the expertise of an Alan Dershowitz

The expertise of Dershowitz is irrelevant if he makes ridiculous omissions

 

[Postvieww]

The expertise of Dershowitz is irrelevant if he makes ridiculous omissions

Such as?

 

[Postvieww]

Glowing praise? I don't know. It seems to accept the legal standing tacitly, which is even worse for your position.

What is the federal election law violation statute used to make the past statute of limitation misdemeanors revived felonies. When you come up with it let Bragg and the court know , they can't even name it.

Dersh and Turley are prominent, but not necessarily authoritative. In any case, you asked for one, I gave you two.

"Jonathan Turley is an American attorney, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. A professor at George Washington University Law School, he has testified in United States congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues. Wikipedia , "

You said prominent but left out professor.

"Alan Morton Dershowitz is an American lawyer and law professor known for his work in U.S. constitutional law and American criminal law. From 1964 to 2013, he taught at Harvard Law School, where he was appointed as the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law in 1993. Wikipedia"

Listed above are the credentials for the two I mentioned. The two you mentioned are prosecutors in NY, explain how their analysis holds up to two law professors?

The fact is there are not "many" as you claimed, willing to stand up and put their reputations on the line for this show trial.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What is the federal election law violation statute used to make the past statute of limitation misdemeanors revived felonies. When you come up with it let Bragg and the court know , they can't even name it.

 

[BPPLEE]

View attachment 348531

New York election law? I thought he was running for president

 

[essentialsaltes]

New York election law? I thought he was running for president

The law refers to elections for "a public office".

 

[perplexed]

Such as?

Merchan's attack on Costello was : "I'd like to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom," he said. "If you don't like my ruling, you don't say 'Jeez,' you don't say 'Strike it,' because I'm the only one who can strike testimony in the court. If you don't like my ruling, you don't give me side-eye, and you don't roll your eyes."

According to Dershowitz the attack was "Don't roll your eyes"

 

[BPPLEE]

Merchan's attack on Costello was : "I'd like to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom," he said. "If you don't like my ruling, you don't say 'Jeez,' you don't say 'Strike it,' because I'm the only one who can strike testimony in the court. If you don't like my ruling, you don't give me side-eye, and you don't roll your eyes."

According to Dershowitz the attack was "Don't roll your eyes"

I believe he has a constitutional right to roll his eyes. As long as he doesn’t say anything.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Comey: Trump election interference case ‘much stronger than I imagined’​

Former FBI Director James Comey weighed in on former President Trump’s criminal hush money case Wednesday, saying it was “much stronger” than he thought.

“There’s an overwhelming chance of a conviction, a significant but much smaller chance of a hung jury and zero chance of an acquittal,” Comey said.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

New York election law? I thought he was running for president

And states are appointed to conduct elections - for both state and federal offices - in their territory. Thus state election laws apply to all state and federal elections.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I believe he has a constitutional right to roll his eyes. As long as he doesn’t say anything.

Not really - judges have a lot of leeway when it comes to enforcing etiquette in the courtroom. Gestures, expressions, and other non-verbal emotes can still be seen as disrespectful and breaches of etiquette. You wouldn't say that you have a right to give the judge the finger, for example, would you?

 

[DaisyDay]

The article is hardly a glowing praise of the firm legal standing of the case. Also a prosecutor from Brooklyn and one from Manhattan can hardly be compared to the expertise of an Alan Dershowitz and a Jonathan Turley.This case is an embarrassment to the legal profession.

Lawrence Tribe and Harry Litman say otherwise.

 

[Pommer]

Comey: Trump election interference case ‘much stronger than I imagined’​

Former FBI Director James Comey weighed in on former President Trump’s criminal hush money case Wednesday, saying it was “much stronger” than he thought.

“There’s an overwhelming chance of a conviction, a significant but much smaller chance of a hung jury and zero chance of an acquittal,” Comey said.

Who cares what the Ross Perot of the teens says?

 

[Arcangl86]

The article is hardly a glowing praise of the firm legal standing of the case. Also a prosecutor from Brooklyn and one from Manhattan can hardly be compared to the expertise of an Alan Dershowitz and a Jonathan Turley.This case is an embarrassment to the legal profession.

A prosecutor from Brooklyn ad one from Manhattan are arguably greater experts in this area then either Dershowitz or Turley, because they have familiarity with the law in question.